Eric Rescorla wrote: > My TLS co-chair suggests that this document should go forward as > Experimental. I see two problems with that. First: it assigns code > points out of a space which is reserved for Standards Action. A correction: the draft needs code points from two different registries (TLS extension types and TLS supplemental data type); both of these registries have at least part of the numbers reserved for "IETF Consensus" policy. So Standards Action is not needed. (The draft also creates two new registries, but their allocation policies and/or initial assignments could be easily modified at this stage.) <snip> > Given all this, plus the fact that this is squarely a TLS-relevant > document, and the IETF norm that it is best when WGs assess the > level of IPR involvement and balance that against the important of > the work, I think it would be best if this work were brought to the > TLS WG, which could decide whether to make it a WG item, in which > case the decisions about IPR could be made in the WG. If it clears > that bar, then we can have some level of confidence that the IPR > issues were judged. If it can't meet that bar, then it probably > should not be published at all. I have to disagree with my co-chair here :-) TLS WG should be involved in major technical work related to TLS, but I don't think getting it involved in IPR discussions would be very fruitful. Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf